T-1210-96
IN THE MATTER OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT,
R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29
AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from the
decision of a Citizenship Judge
AND IN THE MATTER OF
HEUNG MING CHU,
Appellant.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
McGILLIS, J.
The appellant appeals from a decision of a Citizenship Court Judge rejecting his application for Canadian citizenship. In his decision, Citizenship Judge Hong concluded that the applicant did not meet the residency requirement specified in paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.C-29, as amended.
The applicant, his parents and sister were admitted to Canada as permanent residents in October 1991. At that time, the appellant was almost 28 years old. He returned to Hong Kong, his country of origin, two weeks later in order to continue his studies in a Masters of Business Administration program. The appellant completed that course and has continued to pursue other university studies in Hong Kong to the present. Since the time of his landing in Canada, the appellant has visited his family in Canada for two weeks every summer; he also visited his fiancée's family in Canada for one week in 1994. Those were the sole periods of time spent by the appellant in Canada. The appellant was married in Canada to another permanent resident from Hong Kong. During their yearly two week visits to Canada, the appellant and his wife lived in a home in Scarborough owned by relatives. The appellant's wife works in Hong Kong and supports him financially while he completes his studies. His parents and sister are now Canadian citizens.
During the course of his able argument, counsel for the appellant relied on the decision Re Cheung (1990), 10 Imm. L.R. (2d) 58 (F.C.T.D.) in which a student who had continued her studies abroad was granted Canadian citizenship. In determining that the appellant in that case satisfied the residency requirement in paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, MacKay, J. stated as follows at page 68:
| In the circumstances of this case I conclude that the appellant was admitted to Canada as a permanent resident together with her parents, that she did nothing to abandon that status and indeed did all that would ordinarily be expected of one who was still dependent upon her parents and continuing studies abroad to establish residence here with her family, that she intended to return to Canada upon compeletion of those studies, and this she did. In my view she was resident in Canada within s. 5(1) of the Act from the date of her landing in October 1984, and that residence was not interrupted by her absences abroad to complete her studies. |
In my opinion, the facts before me are distinguishable from those in Re Cheung, supra. In the present case, the appellant, who is thirty-three years of age and is supported by his working wife, is no longer dependent on his parents. Furthermore, I am not satisfied, on the basis of the evidence, that he has had a continuing intention to return to Canada since his landing here in 1991. Indeed, as a result of personal choices made by him, the appellant has spent hardly any time in this country. In the circumstances, the appellant has failed to meet the residency requirement in paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act.
The appeal is dismissed.
| Ottawa, Ontario |
June 20, 1997Judge
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: T-1210-96
STYLE OF CAUSE:Citizenship Act and Heung Ming Chu
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 18, 1997
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:The Honourable Madame Justice McGillis
DATED: June 20, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Sheldon M. Robins For the Appellant
Mr. Peter K. Large Amicus Curiae
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Sheldon M. Robins Barrister and Solicitor Toronto, Ontario For the Appellant
Mr. Peter K. Large
Toronto, Ontario Amicus Curiae